It's because that church is mid-way through spending around £6M of the Kingdom's resources on a refit, and I fear that, along with much of the Edinburgh branch of the vine, I haven't uttered a peep of query.
Firstly, I should make a point of saying that I place high value on church unity. I know some people who are involved in this, and this isn't supposed to be judgement, just a challenge.
Indeed, I have seen the faces of some church members light up as they tell of what God has done there - measured in millions of pounds. To date I have grinned inoffensively and failed to take anyone to task with this simple question:
Can it really be the will of the homeless, sojourning messiah to spend this proportion of the wealth of the church in Edinburgh - more than £10 per head of Edinburgh's entire population - on a building?
The text to stop me in my tracks is John 12, wherein Judas rebukes Mary for pouring out expensive perfumes for the glory of her rabbi, rather than selling it and giving the proceeds to the poor.
However, that there is a vast difference doesn't really need pointing out. It is not as if all the disciples then went and raided the pot and bought litres of Hugo Boss. When we do read (in Acts) of the kind of sacrificial giving that this Edinburgh church's membership have practiced, the money was distributed immediately to those who had need (Acts 2, 3, 4).
If the building is to be wholly given away to those who don't have other places to go, then there may be an argument for it.
But if it's simply to accommodate additional numbers - so-called growth - it is likely to divert more energy, more resources, and more talents towards its own altar.
It is worth also bearing in mind that the building is located in the town centre where it will be competing with cafés, bars, and the Omni Centre over the road - where incidentally this church organised some interesting events in the past. Much better, surely, to spend time with the people there, rather than seeking to draw them into our comfort zone.
But let's assume it will be given away. Let's go back, as it were, to the margins - what could a consecrated £6M do in Pilton, Niddrie, or Sighthill? What mini projects could be set up here and there around the city? How else could these seeds be sown?
Of course, Christians would struggle to control this kind of wild scattering of the seed, but then thank God for that.
Control in the name of Christ has a precedent. Christendom - wherein Empire deprived the message of Christ of its relationship- and society-changing power, and made the church exclusively concerned with the abstract 'spiritual', a Greek concept which, as I understand, simply doesn't exist in ancient Hebrew. One side of the coin was crusading, the other was a kind of spirituality in which the Lord's prayer could have ended, "Thy Kingdom stay where it is, thy will be a speedy exit for me, as soon as possible. Amen."
Without wishing to stretch the point, Christendom loved big architectural statements, in which people could escape the terrestrial for the celestial, and we seem to suffer that same kind of infatuation with powerful buildings.
In fact, it's worth quoting a section of scripture at length, from Mark 13:
As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!"
"Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."
At this point in the narrative, the author fast-forwards to a private discussion in which the disciples pull Jesus up on what he said. He responds:
"Watch out that no one deceives you. Many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and will deceive many. When you hear of wars and rumours of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come... You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them."
The lessons seem clear: the trajectory of disciples must be away from the temple, away from great statements of wealth and power, and in the direction of the Spirit who ripped through the Good Friday curtain and burst into creation - from our comfort zones into the hostile throne rooms of principalities and powers.
It is exciting to pray "on earth as it is in heaven". It is exciting to pursue what God's dream might be for Edinburgh and for Scotland.
Alas this pursuit just doesn't seem to resonate with the minute concentration of vast resources.
I'm very late onto this. It is surely too late to do anything about this - at least by the standards we might consider to be the norm.
But what if? What if it was abandoned now? Embarrassment? I don't know - perhaps. But Jesus looked pretty embarrassing on the cross. How about it - 'Church turns back on building for capital's poor' in the Evening News?
One closing anecdote. The rector of this church spoke at our church when I was in Edinburgh. We had Sunday meetings in a gym at the time, with the core ecclesiological expression being the small home groups. He expressed sympathy for us - 'we've been homeless for a couple of years whilst the building work's been under way, and I take my hat off to you for being able to endure it for over a decade.'
Funnily enough, we didn't think we'd been 'enduring' anything. We were just a bunch of disciples doing our best to work out what it means to be part of this broken body. And we never felt the need to rebuild the temple.
Imagine the scene then - this half-finished building ten years down the line, reclaimed by shrubs and with demolition signs swinging from the spire. Meanwhile, 700 members scattered around the city with a little under ten grand each to spend on restoring other, less glamourous dereliction throughout the city.
Amen?
Posts
10 comments:
It sounds fantastic. I feel quite sad reading it though, as the pessimist in me thinks it's not going to happen... But yes. Amen. If they need a precedent, St Luke's in Walthamstow have just done this.
...Couldn't help noticing the bit about being reclaimed by Shrubs though. What are WE meant to do with it?!
It is worth clarifying that the post title links to the church's own FAQ page regarding the project. It is most definitely worth reading the post in the light of this.
As you say you’re about 8 years to late into this discussion. It is however still a worth while discussion. So as I have been involved in many of these type projects please excuse my long winded ramblings. To have the discussion everyone needs to take a step back and look at the issue in a non specific way.
I quick word, that like Mike I went through much at P’s & G’s and still feel that it is my spiritual home, but we should be careful to distinguish between church and church buildings. We are not question P’s & G’s as a church, we are actually asking about how much of our resources we should invest in buildings.
I think there are two questions that we should ask ourselves:
a) should the kingdom use money to construct buildings in which to come together or should they just lease space? and
b) if we believe that the kingdom should construct some buildings how much should they spend on them?
Now question a) biblically I would suggest that although like the birds and foxes God will give us a home, and although we shouldn’t store things up in barns, he requires us to be sensible with our resources. I would suggest that buying a house seems to be a wise investment of resources over a period of many years, but only if the house is wisely for the whole kingdom 24/7 not just on a Sunday for a exclusive group.
The answer to b) in my mind is the more difficult. The cost of a house in Elgin is a lot less than a house in Edinburgh New Town but a lot more than a house in Pilton. Of course a church is going to cost less and yes in many situations hiring a public building is a great witness (if slightly more expensive over a long period (50+ years) than paying a mortgage on a new building) but if you already have a church building that is architectually listed there ain’t much you can do cause you can’t knocked it down and no one will buy a building that they can’t convert.
Now as an ex member of P’s and G’s my opinion was that the church building needed to be re-developed to enable it to serve the kingdom for the next couple of centuries. The crux of problem is can £6million ever be justified.
Rather than just looking at the £6million figure, again lets take a step back. I won’t question a church in say Peebles spending £300,000 on developing a community/church hall. I was surprised when I was at on the Building s Committee at St Thomas’s and our proposed redevelopment of the church was estimated to cost £1,300,000 (interestingly St T’s decided not to go ahead, but spent under £100,000 refurbishing the existing space). As I was surprised when I was told on Monday by an Architect that our proposed small kitchen extension would cost £50,000! So how much would be okay to spend on the listed P’s & G’s building, and is £6million good value? I don’t know.
The argument that P’s & G’s have always stated is that to bring the kingdom to the friends of people who go to P’s & G’s (i.e. upper middle class and above) then any development had to be well designed constructed and finished.
Although, in some respects, ideally I think the church community should be made up of people who life locally, the reality is we live, work, play and church in the places / with the people we want to, partially because we are all so much more mobile. So although I struggled with P’s & G’s decision and direction I had the trust in the elders / vestry who made the bold decision to take this large step of faith (look at all the articles that have already been in the papers about the church who took the step in faith to ask it’s congregation for £6million).
I know the argument that £6million would provide several churches in India or say Aberdeenshire, or a lot of food for the homeless or many other things, but we are called to where we are and P’s & G’s is called to where it is with the congregation it has(a city centre site in Edinburgh, with a youthful rich congregation).
In writing my novel about a Cathedral, I am reminded of how much people in 1300’s gave up to build these magnificent buildings which have brought many to recognise a small part of the Glory of God. If the argument we having now was had back then, we maybe won’t have such amazing buildings. I say this because I believe and hope that P’s & G’s building will be here in hundreds of years.
Anyway in writing this I’ve come up with two questions, only the later of which is really important, and both of which will only be answered in time
a) will the new building be perceived to be worth £6million / will it be seen to have been value for money, and
b) how will the building be used, will it be used 24/7 for the kingdom or will it be used exclusively for those
I don't think this is a fair post at all. I think it is very easy to look at the money and work out where it could be better spent and talk about projects for the poor and forget about major, major cultural differences in our time from Jesus's.
Many of the people in Acts seemed to just hear the gospel and believe. How many people can you say that happens to now? How many people have you just told the Gospel to and they have come to God? I'd be very surprised if it is more than a handful.
I became a Christian at Ps and Gs and it has helped me through some of the darkest periods of my life. The idea that had the church been smaller at the time I should have just been turned away at the door is ridiculous. God is doing amazing things in that church (and many churches around Edinburgh) and people don't respond well to being told simply to go somewhere else.
You also seem to have forgotten two pivotal points:
a) that the project was discussed prayerfully and at length and that the pastor prayed and genuinely felt it was God's will to start this project.
b) that the project also encompasses building another church in a part of town that is lacking them.
You make the building work sound like we are filling it with gold and treasure. The work is being done to expand the seating of a church where every Sunday there were people have to stand throughout the whole service. I'd be interested as to what your solution would be instead.
Dealing with people at the Omni etc. rather than drawing them into the church? I may have misunderstood you but that seems plainly ridiculous. Our "comfort zone" is a place of community, of friendship and of encounters with God. By not inviting people into that it is showing a lack of welcome and seperates us further into an "us and them" attitude.
I don't really see the point in posting this on your blog when I'm sure the pastor would be happy to discuss with you any issues you are feeling about it.
As members of the church all our money is the Kingdom's money. How can you or I justify spending the Kingdom's money on computers or musical instruments when there are people starving and homeless?
Sorry if I seem aggressive, I respect you a lot, I just strongly disagree with the content of the post and the logic of posting it in the way you have.
Cheers
mmmmm….while I see where you’re coming from, and understand your arguments…I kinda disagree! :) Although I no longer live in Scotland, Ps & Gs (and by that I mean the people and the building) is still very close to my heart.
1. I think there’s a few point worth keeping in mind before criticising Project 21. As I work for an investment bank, money is the only thing we talk about from 7am-6pm every day, so I’ll approach this post from a fiscal approach.
2. £6m was not the initially predicted amount (by a team of quantity surveyors), £2.8m was. Whether the project would have gone ahead had the eventual cost been known is another discussion entirely, so let’s ‘judge’ the decisions made on Project 21 on the information available at the time shall we?
3. The money that is being raised is coming entirely from the congregation, and is in addition to their regular giving. The personal sacrifices that have been made are amazing (many of which I know of personally), with many people taking on extra work, not going on holiday, selling possessions and taking real cutbacks in lifestyle. To say this money could have been better used elsewhere is not only very subjective, but the fact remains that the ~£10,000/head (though not evenly distributed) would not have been available for the church to use elsewhere – people have been inspired to give by the church’s vision.
3. Is/was this project necessary? Well, that depends on your view of whether people coming to Christ is necessary or not! Ps & Gs was at full capacity, and I’m not just talking about Sunday services (did you see the 10:30am?!). Youth and children’s work were entirely limited by space during Sunday services, but during the week Alpha, youth clubs, marriage courses, music group, Emerge, student work, counselling, small groups, prayer meetings, etc, etc, did not have the facilities to meet in. The vision and work of Ps & Gs was being constrained by the property available (Alpha is actually currently held in somebody’s home). The project not only gives more seating capacity in the main church, but includes many extra meeting rooms.
4. Let’s talk economics for a moment – if a company is considering a project, it will go ahead if the “marginal benefit” of it exceeds “marginal costs”. If a capital investment is being made “asset turn” is an important metric (which is the annual revenue generated as a % of asset base). Multiply this by net margin and get your return on assets. Again, this is subjective (as benefits here are not measured in ££s), but I believe the return on this investment will be huge, allowing the church to reach out to more people in the community, whilst developing, in many ways, its people to do God’s work.
5. Another quick economics point…Ps & Gs give 10% of their income to external charitable causes. A US survey shows that Christians (those who attend weekly services) give around three times more per person, than non-Christians. I’m no expert here, but it might be fair to conclude that is this city centre church (in a very wealth city) brings in more people through the doors, external charity giving will actually increase.
6. Final note – I think it’s a good job that an investment of similar magnitude (in real terms – ie “today’s money”) was made in the 19th century when the church was built, and subsequently some 100 odd years ago when it was expended. What a blessing those huge capital expenditures have been for people over the last two centuries and will be for generations to come! This project will enable generations to come to do God’s work.
Thanks for the posts.
Whilst I very much disagree with much of what's been written, the posts have clarified that there is a fundamental difference between my ecclesiology and that (those?) of Vyard, Mike and Ross, and this will be considered in a new post at some point this week.
I do want to take this opportunity to tackle what could be called a point of order raised by Mike: why did I blog rather than go to the relevant pastor?
I did mention the post to the pastor as it would indeed be discourteous to blog behind his back.
However, the concentration of vast resources in such a small area of the capital is a concern for the church in Scotland, and it is not just people who used to attend P's and G's services that I have heard express grievance.
I never doubted the pastor's desire for P21 to be a blessing in the city. Equally the fact that due prayerful process was indeed followed, no doubt, and I do not dismiss that lightly.
However, the issues I raised are not firstly to do with P's and G's, but with the dominant ecclesiology, wherein having territory is an assumed 'good'. That, as Ross argues, having this territory is a medium for God's good news to the poor.
I am suggesting that this is a mindset which prevails throughout the visible church, and which is writ large in P21, but of which I am increasingly suspicious.
As such, yes I do believe that P21 is a mistake - and I say that aware that it will sound arrogant in the face of an entire organisation's prayerful decision making - but then I am wondering whether, in fact, any consecrated building is an unnecessary diversion of resources, which is the height of audacity in the face of 1700 years' consensus.
P21 was a huge shock to my system and one of the things that rocked my ecclesiology, and actually my entire understanding of what this discipleship thing is all about. Out of the crumbling, one of the crumbs I'm left with is this question: how ought we to understand "church", this 'gathering of those summoned'?
More later.
I have to admit- I'm one of those agrieved (to put it mildly- more utterly ashamed and embarrased at being part of the church OF edinburgh) at Ps n Gs decision to spend 6 mill on itself- this is congregational narcissism gone mad!
The projects of the saints (that seek to bless the locality - not the congregation) from all - denominations around edinburgh in estates, arts, education, business sectors - we find money for average at about 5k per project. With 6 million that would have blessed the land with-
1200 dreams and projects - enough to catalyse transformation in cities and toons across scotland
the state of the church in any city - is simply measured by comparing
what we spend on serving our sectarian 'stuff' (buildings, festivals, cells, congo and para programs)
v what we spend on projects/dreams
that 'without strings' serve the locality
the bottom line - always reveals the 'real' truth!
Thanks for opening this out in edinburgh mark- took courage man
'it wasn't until jesus dared to critique the temple building that the powers moved in for the kill... why? they were deeply threatened and terrified that jesus was about to blow their cover - their game was about to be unmasked...before the world! they have been playing this game in Scotland for centuries - the 20thC unmasked much of it's colonial games (church wedded to british empire) but it still hides deep in the bowels of our 'temples' - and man o man don't we scots have loads of them: we probably have more sects per square mile than any on the planet -
and that 'done it' - boyo boy that stung them into action..
I've worked wi alcoholics and drugusers- I'll tell ye it's easier
to come off crack than it is for us saints in scotland to come off of our centuries-long trans-generational addiction to 'congregationalism'and 'sectarianism' - leaving the body of Christ sick and fragmented across the land here- each in its ane wee blue narcissistic bubble - in the face of a groaning creation
1. highest incidents of self harming & male suicide & ave. death=59 for men in glasgow 2. atrocious health stats & addiction 3. sectarian divisions at all levels of society
aye the land copies us- they are just copying the church - that's what we've modelled to them- they don't have Christ's story- we have!
so let's do the opposite:
In practical terms: saints all across scotland can make a new covenant with each other God and the land - and start by liquidising our assets and give 50% to poor and the other 50% to projects and dreams that serve society - starting with the concentration camps that surround our cities -
we can always 'hire buildings' for worship, learning and prayer in warmth - some of us have done these sums already- by doing this we would release millions and thousands of saint hours and saint hearts into the land - to draw out its good and reduce its toxicity - in the name of Christ.
anyway you cover the NT theology this much better than i in your latest post- lovely stuff!
The christian sniper position is easy, sometimes a lonely post, but somewhat easy, away from the battle, away from the action. Whats tougher is the frontliner, in the trenches, deep in mud,blood and sweat, grinding it out.
I respect those who see a problem and want to get stuck in, commit themselves to a community, work through the tough times, even when they don't agree, and because of their compassion and conviction they stick with it and make it better.
I don;t respect those who abandon and leave, because its too hard to stay and work through the problem. I struggle with the post evangelical, who is disenfranchised with the church and has bailed. Like all relationships you have to work at it. If you want to change things, its your responsibilty to get stuck in and change it, you won;t change anything sat on the sidelines, looking in and sniping, instead you lose respect from the very people you want to change. I hope that anyone disenfranchised from the church gets down from their sniping post, and take the brave step to go back to the frontline and get stuck in.
I've worked in some of the poorest parts of Africa, with orphaned children, with people who have hardly anything, one set of clothes. I know P's & G's is heavily involved in working with these people, I know many in P's & G's give massively to such projects. The church is here for the long haul, you take a single figure and compare to what the church produces at the moment, but take that figure and see its effect over 30 years and actually it seems money well spent, the knock on of people coming to know Christ in Edinburgh through such a church as P's & G's will have a long term and massive impact on the poor. The world focuses too much on the short term, but we need to look at the long term. And I guess boxthe jack, as someone who has worked with the worlds poorest I only see enormous good coming from the new facilities, and I;m so excited to be involved in God's work here, he is doing amazing things, i invite you to join in with us? I would ask you to trust the church, trust its prayer life and commitment to serving God. The church is in no way perfect and makes mistakes. If this was going to be a mistake going down this road of a new building the money would have not turned up, but in fact it has and to some extent that is a miracle, and it certainly isn't a man made miracle!
I hope you can trust your fellow christian brothers and sisters, and would forgive us for our errors, but rejoice also in how God is using us. The future is looking awesome.
Thanks Big K. I enjoyed looking at your Mulanje blog. I had my best nsima experience ever on her verdant slopes!
Meanwhile, your post makes one substantive point relevant to the questions I raised here, namely how one might depreciate the 6M investment over the very long term.
On this number-crunching issue, you and Paul seem to disagree. I have little to add, other than to restate the 'opportunity cost' point: that the minute focus of these vast resources is hard to justify in the light of dispersed need.
Elsewhere your post is basically defensive, assuming that my purpose is to "snipe" for personal gratification of some kind. Having condemned my motives you then accuse me of lacking trust in my brothers and sisters!
I have contested the prevailing ecclesiological framework, not the personal or even corporate motives of those involved in P21. I would ask you to extend this courtesy to myself and those others who are concerned by what P21 represents.
If you have concerns regarding the manner in which I posted, please look at my contribution to the thread, between Ross and Paul's contributions.
If you are keen to discuss the personal aspects involved in this - i.e. where I'm coming from, email baldercalder@hotmail.com.
box
Post a Comment